Marcos Jimenez responds part II

Marcos Jiminez has posted comments responding to the DBR editor and to "anonymous." Here are the comments:

COMMENT #1"Anonymous" should listen to the tape and write us about it for attribution. Otherwise, any comments by someone named "anonymous" are laughable and cowardly. Posted by Marcos Daniel Jimenez to Southern District of Florida Blog at 3/20/2006 11:19:30 AM

COMMENT #2 My response to the Editor is simply this: anyone listening to the tape will agree that the DBR misconstrued my remarks in a sloppy and disingenuous fashion just to create an attention-grabbing opening. This made for such a confusing introduction that the DBR felt obliged in the third paragraph to notify the reader that I was actually defending the Bush administration during the debate. The Editor's response likewise selectively quotes my statements in order to downplay my defense of the administration's actions.

These attempts to twist what is said on these issues are obviously slanted and somewhat humorous. It reminded one of my colleagues about a recent ABC Stephanopoulous show interview of Sen. Specter:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?

SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president - and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.

You know what the headline was the next day in the LA Times? You guessed it: Arlen Specter: "Impeachment is a remedy"
Posted by Marcos Daniel Jimenez to Southern District of Florida Blog at 3/20/2006 11:16:00 AM

Judge gives maximum 10-year sentences to 2 Cuban smugglers

The Herald reports here regarding Judge Moore's decision to impose the statutory-maximum sentence in an smuggling case that resulted in the death of a young boy.

DBR editor responds

Carl Jones, a reporter at the DBR, was kind enough to email me the DBR's response to Marcos Jimenez's letter:

Editor’s reply: The article prominently noted that Jimenez defended the warrantless eavesdropping program and quoted him saying that the president’s conduct is “plausible and defendable.” It also explained that Jimenez was responding to a question about the appropriate penalty if the Bush administration went too far. The piece quoted Jimenez’s exact language that if the spying program monitored purely domestic communications, “the remedy if he exceeds his authority is impeachment.” The full nature and scope of the monitoring program has not been disclosed.

Marcos Jimenez responds (UPDATED)

A couple days ago the American Constitution Society held a debate between former U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez and Neal Sonnett regarding NSA's warrantless wiretapping. The Daily Business Review ran an article (by Julie Kay) on the debate, highlighting Mr. Jimenez's answers to questions (by Richard Rosenthal) about what remedy there should be if the President violated the Constitution. The article reported that Mr. Jimenez responded that impeachment would be appropriate. Mr. Jimenez has called the article misleading and has asked that his letter in response to the Daily Business Review editor be posted on the blog. So here it is.

***Today's "Dueling Over Eavesdropping" Article on Page A3 of your publication misrepresents and takes out of context what I saidduring the debate with my colleague Neal Sonnett. Towards the end of the debate, I was asked a hypothetical question regarding remedies for inappropriate action by the administration, and as part of my response I said that impeachment is a constitutional avenue to hold the President accountable. I never said or "suggested" that it would be"appropriate" to impeach President Bush in connection with theNSA's warrantless intercepts of terrorism-related communications. Indeed, during the debate, I vigorously argued in favor of the NSA'sand the President's actions, which are wholly appropriate and necessary to protect our country in this time of war.***Marcos Daniel Jimenez Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. 1100 Miami Center201 S. Biscayne Blvd.Miami, FL 33131Main: 305-373-1000 mjimenez@kennynachwalter.com

Here is the intro to the Business Review article:
Former U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez has suggested that it would be appropriate to impeach President Bush if it’s found that the Bush administration monitored domestic calls or e-mails without court approval, or if his approval for the warrantless spying program exceeded his constitutional authority. “My opinion is the [National Security Agency] program should not be used domestically, for state-to-state calls,” said Jimenez, a partner at Kenny Nachwalter, during a debate on secret spying in Miami last week that was sponsored by the American Constitutional Society. “In those cases, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would apply and the Fourth Amendment would apply, and you would need a warrant. The remedy if he exceeds his authority is impeachment.”

I'd like to thank Mr. Jimenez for making this letter available to the blog for posting. I would also invite Julie Kay and Richard Rosenthal to respond to this letter, as well as anyone else who was at the event. (Disclosure -- I am on the board of ACS and helped to plan the debate... Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend as I'm still stuck in Savannah).

UPDATE:
RICHARD ROSENTHAL HAS EMAILED ME HIS RESPONSE. HERE IT IS:
"David Markus has asked me to comment on the controversy surrounding a recent Daily Business Review article by reporter Julie Kay. Ms.Kay's article concerns comments made at the American Constitution Society's recent debate on the Bush Administration's NSA wiretapping program. One of the panelists in the ACS event, former U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez, now states that Ms. Kay's article misleadingly takes out of context some of Mr. Jimenez's answers to questions I posed to him. Because Ms. Kay audiotaped the entirety of the program, there is little that my own memory of the event could possibly add here. The recording will speak for itself. Perhaps an impartial third party would want to review the recording to make an independent assessment of Mr. Jimenez's present assertion. But -- as the ViceChair of the organization sponsoring the event, and as the person whoposed the rather pointed questions to Mr. Jimenez in the first place -- I am probably ill-suited to serve such a role. I would add only that I have the highest professional regard for Ms. Kay's journalistic abilitites and ethics, and equally high regard for Mr.Jimenez's legal abilities and ethics. I thank both of them for their presence and respective roles at the ACS event."

Extradition or kidnaping?

The U.S. government tried to extradite a man to the Dominican Republic. He waited in the FDC in Miami for 8 months fighting it, claiming the DR was lying and fabricating evidence to secure the extradition. Guy Lewis and Mike Tein convinced Magistrate JudgeBarry Garber that the extradition was based on false testimony. Unbelievable. Here's the Herald story which was emailed to me.

Federal Bar Luncheon

The Hon. Adalberto Jordan spoke at the Federal Bar Association’s luncheon yesterday. Judge Jordan explained that attorneys must inform the public of the importance of the judicial “process” and to avoid the tendency to focus solely on the end result of a judicial decision. Judge Jordan emphasized that the public needs to become more aware that a judge’s ruling is based on rules, procedures, precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history. He specifically pointed out how media pundits talk about impeaching judges because of “lenient” decisions in criminal cases or argue about how a newly appointed Supreme Court justice may rule on a particular issue, thereby politicizing the judicial process, and that this endangers the public’s perception of the judiciary. He offered as an example the recent decision by Judge Moreno involving the fifteen Cuban refugees who arrived at the old Seven Mile Bridge. The media focused on the end result and whether Cuba would allow these refugees to return to the United States rather than on the “process” of how Judge Moreno reached his decision. Judge Jordan requested that all of us inform our loved ones, neighbors, and colleagues that judicial decisions involve more than just final decisions but a process that protects the integrity of our legal system.

This year we are slaves...

... next year may we be free men.

That's how Passover Sedar is concluded.

Howard Srebnick has a great quote playing off of that line for his new client, alleged Israeli crime boss Ze'ev Rosenstein: "This year a prisoner in Miami; next year a free man in Israel." U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta responds: "By prosecuting these cartels and the heads of these cartels, in one strike we clean up the streets." The case is in front of Judge Dimitroleous in Ft. Lauderdale. Here's some coverage of the case.

As for Savannah, we are having court this Saturday... No kidding.

So I again apologize for the really slow blogging.

News and notes

Still chugging along up here in Savannah...

Readers have forwarded me some interesting articles today, so here they are:

One is from the Miami Herald about Jack Abramoff's sentencing. Despite the joint motion to continue the sentencing for at least 90 days, Judge Huck only gave a two week continuance until March 29.

Then there's Julie Kay's article in the DBR today about the feud between Judges Hurley and Zloch regarding the Broward courthouse and splitting the District. Here's the intro: District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley is urging the Broward legal community to forget about establishing a new federal judicial district consisting of Broward and Palm Beach counties and to instead fight hard to keep a federal courthouse in Broward.Hurley, speaking to the Federal Bar Association’s Broward chapter late last month also disclosed for the first time that Southern District of Florida Chief Judge William J. Zloch kept his plan to close the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale secret for a full year.Hurley also said Zloch’s plan was approved by South Florida’s federal judges by a single vote and that Zloch never told judges the results of a second vote on the issue.Zloch, who does not talk to reporters, did not return a call for comment.In a December 2004 letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States first reported by the Daily Business Review on Jan. 12, 2005, Zloch laid out a plan to save more than $100 million by, among other things, consolidating court services now performed in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami. Zloch suggested that a new courthouse long proposed for downtown Fort Lauderdale instead be built in West Palm Beach.Zloch also proposed consolidating budget administration services, procurement, personnel computer services functions, and the intake functions of the district and bankruptcy courts.After Zloch’s plan was disclosed by the Review, it was torpedoed by South Florida members of Congress, local elected officials and community leaders. Instead, plans are under way for a combination state and federal judicial complex in downtown Fort Lauderdale.Last May, Hurley took the unusual step of meeting with newspaper editors to denounce Zloch’s “clandestine” effort to close the courthouse. In doing so, he won the gratitude of Fort Lauderdale lawyers, who would have had to commute to Miami or West Palm Beach to conduct their federal practice.“He is a hero to us,” Fort Lauderdale lawyer Terrence Russell, a partner at Ruden McClosky and former Florida Bar president, said after Hurley’s talk at the Federal Bar’s meeting late last month.

More news to follow later tonight if I can squeeze out a couple minutes...

Thanks for Marc Seitles for his posting.